Compare first-time and repeat swap costs honestly

Show three separate numbers when setup costs matter: the first swap's total, the next swap's incremental cost, and the average cost of the swaps actually completed. Each answers a useful question; mixing them makes a repeated-use estimate look like an immediate saving.

Allocate a real setup charge

Assume a hypothetical $3 setup transaction and a $0.60 execution charge per swap. Ignore variable fees and price impact only to isolate allocation.

The eleventh swap costs another $0.60 if no new setup is required. It does not cost $0.90 merely because the earlier ten averaged that amount.

Do not amortize over imagined activity

Dividing $3 over 100 planned swaps produces three cents per planned swap. That is a forecast, not the cost already achieved. If the user stops after one swap, the realized setup cost remains $3 for that one completed action.

ERC-20 allowances describe authorization for a particular spender. Reuse assumptions must therefore match the token and spender involved, as well as any other authorization constraints imposed by the system. A future route does not automatically inherit the same setup.

Compare repeated alternatives fairly

Use the same number of completed swaps and the same total traded value. If one route handles ten small trades and another handles one large trade, the comparison includes a scheduling change as well as a different interface.

For a forward decision, list setup that remains necessary and per-swap costs expected from current quotes. For a historical report, include what was actually paid. Mark future activity assumptions explicitly so that the apparent average saving can be checked against real usage later.